No theory, just curious.

I agree. Things that make you go HMMMMMMM.

They only opposed because it was too broad?  Or was there more to it than that?

While the testimonies from LIFE and HRA are both brief, the other organizations testifying against the bill are pretty detailed.  The premises fall along two lines:
1. This law would be redundant, as there is already a Castle Doctrine law in place here, and
2. The wording is too vague.  You could, for example, shoot your landlord if you didn't want him in the house you were renting from him. 

Personally, the vague wording doesn't trouble me.  We all like to tell the lawmakers that we're intelligent and responsible individuals, right?  So why are we afraid of proving it?  Do we actually think that there will be a rash of shootings just because the law changes, or isn't that exactly the kind of thinking we spend so much time mocking?

Regardless of my view, it would have been nice to have had a discussion on it, and then present a unified front to the lawmakers.  What we've done in this case is demonstrate that HRA and LIFE (and numerous other organizations) do not speak for the people they claim to represent.  At least, that's a perception a senator could easily infer from the submitted testimonies.

What bill is next lol

While the testimonies from LIFE and HRA are both brief, the other organizations testifying against the bill are pretty detailed.  The premises fall along two lines:
1. This law would be redundant, as there is already a Castle Doctrine law in place here, and
2. The wording is too vague.  You could, for example, shoot your landlord if you didn't want him in the house you were renting from him. 

Personally, the vague wording doesn't trouble me.  We all like to tell the lawmakers that we're intelligent and responsible individuals, right?  So why are we afraid of proving it?  Do we actually think that there will be a rash of shootings just because the law changes, or isn't that exactly the kind of thinking we spend so much time mocking?

Regardless of my view, it would have been nice to have had a discussion on it, and then present a unified front to the lawmakers.  What we've done in this case is demonstrate that HRA and LIFE (and numerous other organizations) do not speak for the people they claim to represent.  At least, that's a perception a senator could easily infer from the submitted testimonies.

ditto... demonstrates that the organizations clearly do not represent the interests of Hawaii gun owners, and therefore, pose no organized opposition. It can be spun either way the lawmakers want now. They can use written testimony to do whatever they want, if they so desire. They can say the vast majority or Hawaii firearm organizations support our view, or the vast majority of Hawaii gun owners support our view based on written testimony, and either way they can legitimately justify their vote.

Again, my testimony was not inserted into the list.    I did, at least, get my support logged. However, my testimony, that was uploaded via the web site, was not entered.  This is starting to piss me off!    Perhaps this is why there are so many comments only posts?

Does anyone know what type of format is required to upload testimony?

Does anyone know what type of format is required to upload testimony?

i can't find anything online.  I'd recommend trying to stay with PDF or word if you can.   just to be on the safe side. 

Wait so should we support a bill like this or not?

How does our castle doctrine law work now?

Does anyone know what type of format is required to upload testimony?

It uses their form?

What went wrong here was a lack of communication.

The organization (HRA) that was representing us collectively, did not represent out views in its testimony,nor did it communicate with us it's position on this bill.

I think that unless HRA can improve its ability to communicate with its members and represent us collectively, I'd rather lean towards making up my own mind in issues that are this important instead of waiting and doing nothing.

We really need to continue making people more aware of the things happening locally and I think that 2ahawaii is it. 

At the very least, 2ahawaii can give the various firearm groups a place to communicate so we can act more cohesively or at least have a place to have a good discussion on these things.

i can't find anything online.  I'd recommend trying to stay with PDF or word if you can.   just to be on the safe side.

+1. PDF works great. You can use free PDF printers like Cutepdf or Bullzip PDF printer if you don't have one.

i can't find anything online.  I'd recommend trying to stay with PDF or word if you can.   just to be on the safe side. 

I sent it in word format, and it works a few of the first times. but now, no so much.

+1. PDF works great. You can use free PDF printers like Cutepdf or Bullzip PDF printer if you don't have one.

Thanks! I'll look into that. Everone should be able to do PDF

You can use the comments section to type your message and then you don't have to worry about any format issues
Y

You can use the comments section to type your message and then you don't have to worry about any format issues
Y

If you have a ten page document you probably don't want to retype in the box.  It probably won't accept that much anyway.

If you have a ten page document you probably don't want to retype in the box.  It probably won't accept that much anyway.

copy paste

Wait so should we support a bill like this or not?

How does our castle doctrine law work now?

If I'm not mistaken, Here's the current law:

["[§663‑1.57]  Owner to felon; limited liability.  (a)  An owner, including but not limited to a public entity, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or any agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies set forth in subsection (b) for any injury or death to the perpetrator that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of such felony, or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent; provided that if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor. 

   (b)  This section applies to the following felonies:

     (1)  Murder in the first or second degree;

     (2)  Attempted murder in the first or second degree;

     (3)  Any class A felony as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;

     (4)  Any class B felony involving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;

     (5)  Any felony punishable by imprisonment for life;

     (6)  Any other felony in which the person inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; and

     (7)  Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.

     (c)  The limitation on liability under this section arises:

     (1)  At the moment the perpetrator commences the felony to which this section applies; or

     (2)  At the moment the owner or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner believes that a commission of a felony under subsection (b) is imminent;

and extends to the moment the perpetrator is no longer upon the property.

     (d)  The limitation on liability under this section applies only when the perpetrator's conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in subsection (b) proximately or legally causes the injury or death. 
   (e)  This section does not limit the liability of an owner that otherwise exists for:

     (1)  Wilful, wanton, or criminal conduct; or

     (2)  Wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure; or

     (3)  Injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.

     (f)  Except with regard to [subsections] (e)(1) and (e)(3), the limitation of liability under this section shall not be affected by the failure of the owner to warn the perpetrator of the felony that the owner is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.

     (g)  For purposes of this section, "owner" means the owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.

     (h)  The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense."]


Try to figure all that out while you're trying to determine if you have LIMITED liability to defend your home and it's occupants.

" Wait, Class A or B felony ?  Perp needs to be charged and convicted after the fact if I shoot ?  Is he inflicting serious bodily injury ?  I'm not immune from willful conduct, willful failure to guard or warn the perp from dangerous condition....... "
Head explodes before I can defend myself or my family.

I agree the bill was broad, but support with amendments would have been the appropriate response in my opinion as the current law sucks.
 WE DO NOT HAVE CASTLE DOCTRINE IN HAWAII.  In my opinion.

Now back to the unified front and communication discussion. 

If you Google castle doctrine, it will pull up the bill for Hawaii. Specifically in that bill under subsection 4 or 5 it states if you are in your home you have no duty to retreat if you are not the agressor or something like that. Can't quote it now cause I'm on my phone and I forget which hrs it is.

Correct, we have a Castle Doctrine in the sense that there is no duty to retreat. However, you would need to go through a 20 point checklist ( I'm exaggerating...maybe ) before you can use physical or deadly force.

"Castle Doctrine

Hawaii adopted a castle law in 2010. While the law isn’t as broad as many other states’ castle laws, it removes the duty of residents to retreat when they’re confronted by a criminal inside their home or on their property. The law removes the liability of citizens who use physical or deadly force against criminals who are in the act of committing a list of felonies, including any Class A or Class B felony involving physical violence under Hawaii’s penal code, as well as any felony involving the use of a firearm, involving serious bodily injury or punishable by life in prison."

From :  http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Hawaii-Gun-Laws.htm

Try to decipher the list of felonies applicable before using physical or deadly force when seconds count.

The proposed bill was overly broad, I agree.  But the current law is overly complicated/restrictive. Could have supported with amendments. That's still my position.  And in my opinion should have been HRA's and LIFE's.

But I am not a lawyer 

P.S.  Hats off to Sen. Sam Slom to get the current version passed. That was a battle in itself.

In some ways, I guess we should be thankful for what we have.